• FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t partake, but it’s definitely degrading because you have to sell your body for a living just like construction or factory jobs.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Banning sex work is about as successful as banning drugs. All it usually does is lead to more misery for the sex workers. Which is entirely the intention, of course.

    • Lennard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The Scandinavian model only criminalizes the clients, so I guess making their life’s worse isn’t the purpose. Still I am in favor of a fully regulated market with favorable working conditions.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That model is much better but from what I heard it’s still not optimal for sellers because buyers are still committing a crime so it will still need to happen far away from the law and anyone that could help protect the sellers, like in massage places and sus places of town. Otherwise no buyers would dare buy.

        • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not just that, Nordic sex workers have a combination of problems in the various countries, like not being able to rent private housing because that’s seen as profiting off sex workers (pimping) and various other ancillary limitations surrounding that.

          You’re better off fully decriminalizing first, and then later probably creating some sort of government sanctioned organization made up of sex workers and customers, to regulate the industry.

      • Entropywins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        My experience as an addict tells me more people trying drugs isn’t necessarily the best thing they can do for their lives IMHO.

        • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know if it’s true that making drugs legal means more people try them. It might make sense in a certain sort of way but I’d like to see data before accepting it as truth.

          • skulblaka@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            As it seems to me, who hung around with a lot of drug users back in the day, as well as regular folks: most people who are interested in trying them can and will get their hands on it regardless of legality, sometimes easily. It’s about as low risk of a crime as there is. Those who aren’t interested, won’t, again regardless of legality. There will be edge cases where somebody will go “Ah what the hell, it’s legal now, why not” and toddle on over to their local dispensary for the first time but largely speaking anybody that wants to smoke weed or snort coke is probably already doing it.

            Now what probably would change is the number of people on record using drugs, per capita, over the next few generations if it becomes normalized like alcohol has been. Which makes sense. But, counterpoint to that, in countries where they have legalized many drugs they still often have lower rates of severe addiction because they’ve generally also set up safety nets for those folks. Accessible medical care and available addiction treatment options will keep many drug users from hitting rock bottom, but we don’t really have that in the US so many users will often go unassisted in any way for ages and lose jobs and homes because of it, only getting “help” when it becomes forced upon them by the state (which is frequently not in any way helpful).

            Anyway, I’m rambling, but tl;dr it’s definitely a multifaceted situation and blanket legalization probably isn’t a great move without accompanying medical and social support, which needs to happen anyway regardless of any moves for drug legalization. Gotta walk before we can run, unfortunately.

    • abies_exarchia@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is funny and also begets some serious questions about who we are seizing the means of reproduction from and why they were seized in the first place. Silvia Federici offers some answers in her book Caliban and the Witch

  • Peachy [they/them] @lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Reminder to keep it chill in the comments. Discussion is fine as long as you aren’t personally attacking others or saying misogynistic shit. Double check the rules pinned at the top if you need a refresher

        • Pudutr0n@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can’t really abolish ownership. Only transfer it. Abolish all private enterprise?
          Congrats, the elite political class that rules your government now owns you. :)

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You can abolish ownership and make decisions democratically. It’s better than Capitalism where the wealthy few own the majority without democracy.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          What does that even mean in the context of sex work? People no longer own their own bodies? Sounds disempowering to me. A dystopia!

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Old joke, but on topic.

    A professor asks a class if anyone there would be a sex worker if they were paid $1 billion for a year. Everyone raises their hand.

    He then asks if anyone in the class would do sex work for one night if the pay was $5.00?

    Class is all irate. “What kind of people do you think we are?”

    “I know what kind of people you are. Now we’re discussing the prices.”

  • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s no more degrading than other work. I wouldn’t tell a cashier they’re degrading themself by having to work to live, and I wouldn’t say that to a sex worker either.

  • cobysev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Way back in my senior year of high school (around 2002), we had a debate project where everyone partnered up, picked a controversial topic, picked a side of the topic, and then researched and advocated for their side to the rest of the class, including a Q&A at the end, where the class could challenge their position.

    To our surprise, the two hottest girls in our class picked prostitution as their topic, and advocated for it to be legalized. The teacher was also surprised, and curious enough to let them present their topic to the class.

    We all thought they were joking with their topic, to get a rise out of all the horny boys. After all, as 17/18 year olds, our experience with prostitution came from movies or TV documentaries, where it was generally shown as a disgusting and degrading act; the last resort for a woman down on her luck.

    But the girls’ presentation was incredibly well researched, with figures regarding the number of deaths, violent crime, drugs, and human trafficking involved in illegal prostitution, compared to Nevada’s legalized prostitution since the 1970s, which had practically no numbers to report.

    They even did a deep dive into a brothel in Nevada, where the women were paid very well and treated kindly and fair and not like they’re just a piece of meat. Plus, they had regular checkups and practically free health care because of their profession. They even walked through the various services they provided, since some people (they serviced anyone, not just men) wanted other forms of intimacy instead of just sex. It was a safe and judgment-free environment, on both sides of the table, and the women employed there actually wanted to do the job, with the option to quit anytime. Unlike illegal prostitution, which removed the woman’s autonomy over her own body and placed her in dangerous situations, exposed to violence and drugs to barely make a living.

    In the end, the girls did a fantastic job on their presentation and convinced a whole class of seniors that prostitution could be an honest and respectable position, and should be legalized. I’ve never looked at it the same way since.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    an argument against regulating sex work is that it would place government control on what we do with it bodies

    That’s also happening with banning it, of course, but I’m not sure if the jump we necessarily want is legalization plus regulation. Just a thought, no stance yet

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It would only regulate bodies in regards to labor, which is something we already do in other industries. We allow or even mandate drug tests for employment, something that is occasionally justifiable for certain professions. We already regulate out of work activities that could affect job safety, so prostitution wouldn’t introduce anything new. Most of the harmful things that could arise from regulation aren’t unique to sex work

  • Juice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.

    – Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts